DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/21/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application, of claims 6-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-5 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 2, it is suggested to amend “LixNa1-xFePO4” to - - LixNa1-xFePO4 , wherein 0<x<1- - to conform to prior recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et. al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0403234), and further in view of Palmore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0108905).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang teaches a dual-cation metal battery (i.e., electrochemical device) (100) (paragraph [0072]) (see figure 1) comprising:
a positive electrode (i.e., second electrode) (106) (paragraph [0072], [0079]) comprising a positive electrode material (paragraph [007]);
a negative electrode (i.e., first electrode) (102) comprising a metal mixture consisting of lithium metal and sodium metal (i.e., Li, Na and/or K) (paragraph [0038], [0042], [0051]), wherein an amount of Li is greater than or equal to 1 mol% (paragraph [0048]) and an amount of Na is greater than or equal to 1mol% which overlaps the claimed weight ratio (paragraph [0049]) (see calculation example below) (Note: the cited sections also teach that “other ranges greater than and less than those noted and combinations are also possible” (paragraphs [0048]-[0051]));
an electrolyte solution (i.e., liquid phase) (paragraph [0038], [0042]-[0043], [0046]), disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and a separator (i.e., solid electrolyte) (104) (paragraph [0072]) disposed in the electrolyte solution (i.e., as shown in figures 2-3, liquid phase 130 would be in contact with the electrolyte 140 and in between the electrodes solid phases 120) (paragraph [0072], [0076], wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are separated from each other by the separator (paragraph [0072]).
Chiang does not teach the positive electrode selected from the group consisting of heterosite (FePO4), lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) and LixNa1-xFePO4, wherein 0<x<1.
Palmore, directed to cathode materials (paragraph [0002]), teaches compositions for cathode materials such as Li0.47Na0.2FePO4 are known and have been investigated to exhibit high capacity and good cycling performance (paragraph [0013], [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiang to include a cathode material such as Li0.47Na0.2FePO4 as taught by Palmore in order to increase capacity and good cycling performance.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
A
t
o
m
i
c
W
e
i
g
h
t
s
:
L
i
=
6.94
g
m
o
l
;
N
a
=
22.99
g
m
o
l
m
o
l
e
s
L
i
=
1
6.94
=
0.144
;
m
o
l
e
s
N
a
=
3
22.99
=
0.130
→
t
o
t
a
l
m
o
l
e
s
=
0.144
+
0.130
=
0.274
L
i
m
o
l
%
=
0.144
0.274
x
100
=
52.6
%
x
6.94
g
m
o
l
=
365.0
g
N
a
m
o
l
%
=
0.130
0.274
x
100
=
47.4
%
x
22.99
g
m
o
l
=
1089.3
g
∴
365
g
L
i
:
1089.3
g
N
a
≈
w
e
i
g
h
t
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
1
:
3
Note: 52.6 mol% of Li and 47.4 mol% of Na both fall within the range taught in the prior art.
It is noted that Chiang differ in the exact same ratio as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ratio of Chiang overlaps the instant claimed ratio and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 2-5, Chiang, as modified by Palmore, teaches the battery as described above in claim 1 to include the cathode material of Li0.47Na0.2FePO4. The claims recite charging and discharging conditions of the claimed battery. The claims are considered product-by-process claims, and the recited charging and discharging steps do not impart any structural or functional distinction to the claimed battery relative to the product. As such, the patentability of the claims is based on the claimed battery itself. Nonetheless, Chiang teaches charging and discharging the battery (paragraph [0065]) in order to transfer ions between the anode and the cathode (paragraph [0044]) (same as the claimed invention – paragraph [0035] of the instant specification). As such, it would have been obvious to apply such conventional charging and discharging protocols or modes to the battery of Chiang in order to achieve predictable results (i.e., transfer ions between the anode and the cathode).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hu et al. (U.S. Patent 11,043,696). Hu teaches metal alloys made of lithium and sodium for anodes in batteries (C2:L45-55) and LiFePO4 for cathodes (C5:L41-54).
Zhamu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210151741). Zhamu teaches the use of lithium and sodium metal for anodes (paragraph [0013]).
Bao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0045332). Bao teaches LiFePO4 for cathodes (paragraph [0005]) and lithium and sodium metal for anodes (paragraph [0016]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723